[Dragon]

You could tie the benefits to actual parenthood and pregnancy instead of marriage. So there is no need for marriage just to incentivize children.

Yes, but this might be more complex than it seems. Marriage simplifies a great many things, it's essentially a formal declaration of two people forming a family. That means, in most cases, that they share a place to live, their money and children. It's not easy to go back on this, but it has a number of benefits as well. The system is somewhat flawed (for example, it prohibits polygamy, which is allowed in many religions), but it does what it's supposed to in most cases. It not only incentives people to have children, it incentives them to raise them together. You could keep all those functions through other means, but it'd be a massive legal undertaking. Also, it might increase paperwork overhead associated with having a child, since now instead of a single declaration of marriage you'll have at least two formal declarations of parenthood (which might not be as clear, as well).

Removing civil marriage would have a large impact on society. No doubt it'd cause new pathologies to spring up, but it might also remove some old ones. And the amount of paperwork will almost certainly increase. Marriage, as a union of two people, is something we're used to, we know how it works and it seems to work fine in great majority of cases. It can be gotten rid of, but it would be an enormous change that would have to be handled very carefully. A botched transition could really mess things up, as well.

[Luis Dias]

Within the "it will never come up, stop with your slippery slope conservatard nonsense" news section, here's something that actually surprised me given how little time period we had before this was even raised as an issue. You'd hope that given this victory against the religious conservatives, a small modicum of discreetness and patience would be advised, but hey, Utopia is calling and life's short, so why not give reason to every single conservative that was fearmongering about how "polygamy would be next!" by precisely starting to write Op'eds in defense of Polygamy?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.

[Flipside]

To be honest, I was wondering when that shoe would drop.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with consensual polygamy, but the problem is that Polygamy seems entirely centred on the man having multiple wives, and is often powered by pressure rather than an agreement between both the parties made outside of duress or free of social or cultural pressure.

Edit : Kind of odd if you consider that social and cultural pressure was a lot of the reasons behind Gays not being allowed the rights of marriage for so long.

[Luis Dias]

I am also waiting to see (actually no but hey) the civil war in the far left between the polygamists and the third wave feminists who will precisely raise your point about polygamous relationships being usually patriarchal, male dominated and thus antithetical to their ideas. Contrarians will point out that this stereotype is bigotry at its finest, that just like gays were bashed as being pedophiles, now polygamists are being bashed for creating harems, etc.

Meanwhile the right will be baffled by all of this civil war, raise their arms in desperation and call this the end times. It will be dreadful.

[Grizzly]

Or you could just stay off twitter

[Luis Dias]

And miss all the fun?

[Mr. Vega]

Nah, we're having too much fun gawking at Richard Dawkins claim the Civil War wasn't really neccessary to free the slaves and that it corrupts children to teach them fairy tales. We'll cross the polygamy issue bridge when we come to it.

Seriously though, the Charleston massacre and police killings of black men and women are going to suck up the left's attention for a while. Hopefully there'll be some attention given to the fact that you can still be fired for marrying your same sex partner in ~30 states. And then there's the ongoing attacks on trans individuals in state legislatures. It will be a very long time before anyone cares about polygamy.

[Luis Dias]

That kind of misreading + trollposting ability really is absolutely astounding Vega, even for you. Slow clap.

e: regarding " It will be a very long time before anyone cares about polygamy.", that was my calculation as well, but apparently, I was already wrong. I wasn't expecting an op'ed about it so soon. So perhaps I was too optimistic in that vector, I'm probably as optimistic regarding how soon people will care about this. Ten years? 15?

[Mr. Vega]

My apologies, I don't want to interrupt your imaginings of civil wars between groups you often intensely dislike for your own amusement. Carry on.

Anyways, back on subject, Canadian LGBT advocacy groups lost most of their funding when marriage was legalised. That just can't happen in America, not with the want for comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, and I don't think it will, but like, I can't exactly convince myself why that scenario can't happen.

I've also heard a lot of transfolk terrified that the right will focus their attacks on them now that gays are politically untouchable. I'm less worried about that. It's become its own discussion point very rapidly now. Caitlyn Jenner, John Oliver's newest episode, Leelah's Law. Political resistance to anti-trans laws should develop much more rapidly than anti-gay laws, since the path has been so recently walked on.

The American right has been built on the culture wars idea. Is abortion really going to win elections for them? Or anti-trans legislation? Gun control won't work for much longer either. This may be the end of the RR's influence simply because they're going to run out of social issues they can pick up votes for.

[Klaustrophobia]

Le sigh.

People still think republicans are about nothing but the polarized social issues.  I suppose it's easier that way though, so we're just the crazy racist/homophobic/anti-whatever else fringe and can be written off without a second thought.  Surely no good person could be conservative. 

[Mr. Vega]

Le sigh.

People still think republicans are about nothing but the polarized social issues.  I suppose it's easier that way though, so we're just the crazy racist/homophobic/anti-whatever else fringe and can be written off without a second thought.  Surely no good person could be conservative. 

I said religious right. The Republican mainstream discourse will be dominated by economic and racial issues from here on out. Which should be good for them, at least in the short run.

[Scotty]

Le sigh.

People still think republicans are about nothing but the polarized social issues.  I suppose it's easier that way though, so we're just the crazy racist/homophobic/anti-whatever else fringe and can be written off without a second thought.  Surely no good person could be conservative. 

Republican != conservative.
Conservative != Republican.

[Mr. Vega]

Le sigh.

People still think republicans are about nothing but the polarized social issues.  I suppose it's easier that way though, so we're just the crazy racist/homophobic/anti-whatever else fringe and can be written off without a second thought.  Surely no good person could be conservative. 

Republican != conservative.
Conservative != Republican.

That's less and less true now. Even if you let the meaning of the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' drift so as not to confuse the ever-confused mainstream media conversation.

[Grizzly]

And miss all the fun?

There won't be any fun, there will just be manufactured outrage by people who have a vested interest in making people believe in 'culture wars'.

[Bobboau]

The Republican party is pretty much a bizarre coalition between theocrats, libertarians, and pro-big-business. Held together mainly by nationalism. It's amazing it works as cohesive as it does, but I suppose that's only because it's being compared to the Democratic party, which is an even looser coalition that will splinter into a dozen parties as soon as the Republicans collapse.

[Luis Dias]

I always find it funny that the very people who will fight for liberal ideas in our culture, a few of them will even call themselves "social justice warriors" will then veemently (and with a straight face, no less) deny any culture war whatsoever as a conservative "conspiracy theory" or whatever. Just a second later or before, we see these people pointing fingers at Dawkins or Tim Hunt because they said an "offensive joke", why not hammer the point home till their jobs are taken away, I mean, what's lost really, it was a bigot anyway.

[Grizzly]

Nobody calls himself a "Social Justice Werebear" with a straight face though, the term is invented entirely by people who believe in culture wars - I think you might just be confusing "not liking a joke" with a full on war there.

[Luis Dias]

Tell that to Tim Hunt or Matt Taylor, I'm pretty sure that's the takeaway of many non-battles of these non-warriors of all of this non-war going on here. Move along, it's just crazy talk.

e: Look, forget about all of the twitter / buzzfeed / mary sue - breitbart wars. When I mention something on the lines of "Culture Wars" I am being a lot more general than all of those social web dramas here, I'm talking about the struggle to change the status quo to a different state that is more in line with a lot of leftist ideas, like the redefinition of marriage, the end of racism (and how to go about it), the relationship between societies and their culture, how do we deal with education and what sorts of ideas and practices should we instill in the next generations, etc. These struggles are political but they are also cultural. There are *sides* to these ideas, why would anyone deny these battles and struggles is beyond me.

The gay achievement in the US this past week could not have been achieved *without* a cultural shift that would support it. And this meant a lot of discussion, a lot of disagreement and a lot of struggle. By all means, do what the extreme left always does and deny words when they are uncomfortable, and thus deny the notion of "Culture Wars", use a different word if you so please. But bear in mind that while you do that sleazy semantical dribble, you are losing my respect.

[Bobboau]

Nobody calls himself a "Social Justice Werebear" with a straight face though, the term is invented entirely by people who believe in culture wars - I think you might just be confusing "not liking a joke" with a full on war there.

no the term was used unironically for quite a few years, only recently has it become associated with insane witch hunters on the teaparty of the left.

[NGTM-1R]

I always find it funny that the very people who will fight for liberal ideas in our culture, a few of them will even call themselves "social justice warriors" will then veemently (and with a straight face, no less) deny any culture war whatsoever as a conservative "conspiracy theory" or whatever.

Your argument is disreputable and your respect meaningless because you're trying to frame it as some kind of battle with victories and losses for both sides. Look around you. It doesn't work that way. If this is a war, then it's one being played out against some alien, incomprehensible juggernaut that overruns defense after defense, with never a meaningful counterstrike. The calls go out and the time, treasure, and energy is poured into the next line of defense for a few years, until it buckles too.

The culture war narrative of battle and boldness is a lie. There is determination, certainly; more than one organization has made same-sex marriage the hill they'd die defending, and are suffering for that decision. But there is nothing bold, no battle being waged, no real effort to do more than hold the current line. You can see it in action now. The only people talking about pushing back the clock on the Supreme Court decision are the ones even people on their own side will deride as the cranks. The hill has been lost and they will rally on another, ceding this one forevermore. The do-nothing Congress we enjoyed manifests the same problem: rather hold it where it stands by doing nothing, than attempt to actually advance an agenda. There is no victory in this sort of defense, however; the will and the ability of your opponents to strike again remains untouched, and so long as that is true no victory is possible.

Cthulhu swims slowly. But Cthulhu only swims left. The culture war narrative was manufactured by the right because it lets people feel they are brave and their lives are exciting; that they are engaged in some grand and meaningful struggle. (You see similar narratives of a grand struggle in which they are participating in many religious sects.) They can role-play brave soldiers in heroic resistance. It's a lie, told cynically; the struggle may be real, but their bravery is false and their efforts, their hopes, always in vain. The line will never hold eternally.